Democrats cry reverse racism

re: Democrats cry reverse racism

Edna — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:43:10 GMT

You state, quote: "What an interesting turn of the worm. Sometime next week, we may have democrats suing democrats for carrying out a very democratic policy of advancing minorities." My response to that is: DiMaio is not, as your article states, going against the democratic notion of "advancing minorities". Precisely the opposite! He is suing on grounds that the party took federal money and thus the party is subject to civil rights law and the process should be totally color blind and fair to all. SEAT OUR DELEGATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(I'm not sure I put in enough exclamation points, but a good artist knows when to put down the paint brush.)

re: Democrats cry reverse racism

Brendan — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:31:22 GMT

Edna, not to be condescending, but here in America, liberals generally support affirmative action policies that do take race into account while conservatives support the idea of color blind policies. Look it up in your Funk and Wagnall.com.

re: Democrats cry reverse racism

Brendan — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:33:39 GMT

As for the exclamation points? One is too many. If a sentence isn't strong enough to make a clear point, a page full of exclamation points won't help.

re: Democrats cry reverse racism

Edna — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:37:55 GMT

Fair enough on both counts, although I tend to take a bit of an e.e. cummings approach to punctuation and language in general, namely, have fun with it, but anyway, back to business here: you are correct that liberals, in general, tend to support affirmative action. I happen to be one very liberal person who does not support most affirmative action cases (it depends on the specifics, as the term "affirmative action" is pretty board). And I certainly don't support the arbitrary and arcane system of allowing certain states to vote first every election cycle, especially if it is at all based on demographics. I hope, for the next presidential election cycle, we will move to some sort of rotating, regional primary system. It is too late for this cycle, obviously. Howard Dean has managed to mess this up beyond fair repair, imho. He should have just stripped Florida and Michigan of half of their delegates. That way, it would have been a punishment to FL & MI, and disincentive to other states to break the rules, but at the same time, the innocent VOTERS of FL & MI would still have had a representational voice, albiet an understandably and fairly diminished one. It was TOTALLY unfair and wrong to strip away ALL the delegates from FL, in particular, given the specifics of how the rule was violated here, but ANYWAY: at this point in the going, if the delegates are seated at all, I hope that Florida's delegation will be apportioned based on the actual votes cast, as all candidates appeared on the ballot, no candidates campaigned here so it was a level playing field, and we had a record, massive voter turnout. The results are NOT in question in Florida, the only question is: should Dean's ruling stand. I'm with DiMaio that it shouldn't. And if he can fight it based on civil rights discrimination, I'm all for that. Again, it isn't going against a democratic principle, it is fighting FOR quite a few democratic principles, imho.

Lastly, I appreciate your responses, even though you don't seem too thrilled with my comment. I find your TV show, "Flashpoint" to be informative and it fills a need for local issues-oriented programming. Keep up the good work!

re: Democrats cry reverse racism

Edna — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:41:13 GMT

P.S. The primary was held on January 29th, btw.

Peace out!

re: Democrats cry reverse racism

Edna — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:48:25 GMT

P.S. Last but not least, I think color-blind policies, in general, are the true way to advance the cause of civil rights, which, btw, is very near and dear to my heart. So, again, just because I'm a liberal Democrat, doesn't mean I'm automatically supposed to be for anything labeled "affirmative action". The TRUE affirmative action is to, as MLK so eloquently said, judge people on the content of their character, not the color of their skin or anything else. And my original point in response to what I quoted from your article was, I don't think it is accurate to say that the DiMaio suit somehow goes against advancing democratic principles. Although I do see your point that, traditionally, the cause of affirmative action has been strongly associated with the Democratic party. So, if you meant "democratic principles" as in: principles that are democratic, then DiMaio's suit is all about advancing them, not setting them back. But if you meant "democratic principles" as in: principles typically associated with the Democratic party, then yes, you could argue that the suit bucks the usual trend in the sense of it may not be seen as "politically correct" by some in the Democratic party. But again, this lifelong Democrat and liberal, for one, sees the DiMaio suit as fighting FOR democratic principles, big time.

Okay, I'll shut up now...too much green tea today! It packs a good deal more caffeine than one would think.

re: Democrats cry reverse racism

Edna — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:50:19 GMT

P.S. Good Lord, it is me again, as I have to correct a hideous typo: I mean to say, in my second post, that the term "affirmative action" is pretty "broad", not "board". Okay, NOW I'm really going to shut up.

re: Democrats cry reverse racism

Brendan — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:14:35 GMT

Edna, I love ya! Keep watching and writing in.

re: Democrats cry reverse racism

Kenneth Quinnell — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:38:27 GMT

Colorblind policies only make any sense in a perfect world or a vacuum. Here in the real world where racism exists, colorblind policies give a benefit to those groups already in power and cause an adverse effect on those not in power.

re: Democrats cry reverse racism

Edna — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:16:29 GMT

Very true/good point, Kenneth. It is a very tricky issue. I definitely differ from most of my fellow bleeding-heart liberals and my fellow Democrats on "affirmative action" in general (although it depends on the specifics of what we are talking about, but in general, I tend to favor the blind justice/merits/content of character ideal), probably because I'm an idealist and I think that if we want to move past "isms" (be it racism, sexism, age-ism, any kind of ism), we just have to do it, we can't fix past or even current isms by going in the other direction, as two wrongs don't make a right. Then again, I do see your point and it is very tricky because sometimes there is just no way to be truly fair if the system/society itself is inherently unfair in some way(s).

P.S. Brendan, I will certainly keep watching Flashpoint! It is very informative on issues important to Tampa Bay citizens that might not get much in-depth TV coverage otherwise. In addition to being one of the few liberals who finds many affirmative action policies problematic, I am also one of the few people in the US of A who still doesn't have cable (GASP!), so Flashpoint is even more important to me because coverage of local issues is even more scant if one is limited to broadcast TV versus having cable channels, too. Again, keep up the good work!

re: Democrats cry reverse racism

voxy — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:01:56 GMT

I think that he's an embarrassment.
There wasn't ANY other way they could think of to seat the delegates when everyone BUT Obama wants them seated other than to throw the tattered and torn race card in to the fan again?
He just seeks to spin the picture a bit more like a funhouse mirror. It's an OLD trick. The oldest in the book: divide and conquer. Would be interesting to know Mr. Di Maio's preference for pres. Maybe McCain?

As well, Bill Nelson and Steinberg's errr brainstorms should be tossed by ANY judge who can read.
If that was the reasoning behind moving the primaries (equalizing the playing field) than why was not Missouri, New York or any of the other fourteen states here chosen??? Huh? (states with highest black populations as if that should matter to anyone)
If I remember correctly the html does not work here so here is the link: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmcensus1.html

Why didn't anyone worry about giving THE WOMEN a fair shot? LMAO !! (two exclamations LMAO loveya brendan)
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/projectionsagesex.html

Sometimes people pretend they are bending over backwards to be FAIR when, in fact, their concern is to be anything BUT.
My background is very similar to Kenneth's. In fact, my Grandfather and his offspring have a long history of promoting equality for all. I don't see the same racism as Kenneth does. In fact, the most I've heard about racism in America is when Oprah decided that she wanted to control the White House. I see mixed marriages and people of all colors getting together EVERYWHERE. There are some ignorant people but until you can go into their homes and stop them from teaching their children to HATE and actually drum out the rise of the New American Nazi Party, you're spinning your wheels. And you are confused, at best.
Instead of some 'group' rights being promoted perhaps we would be better served to invest less in bumper stickers and slogans and invest in opposing the rise of fascism in America as one human group.
Divided we fall.
There is less racism today than EVER in any of our lifetimes yet everywhere I look, it's the word I read most frequently, currently.
See, I can figure out where that's coming from.
Why am I alone there?

It's media driven. Who drives the media? Oprah(and a few noted others cough BUSH) Although it's been hushed down lately I think we'll all remember reading that she was the most powerful and richest woman in America and was highly (hello book club) influential in publishing (goodbye jackie o) And that was some time back. Since then she's become the publisher of a mag. Not just one.

The rest of the stuff is incidentally purposeful confusion. Partly driven by a hidden agenda and partly driven by a very public agenda of the Republican party to confuse the Democratic agenda.
All together now : WHOSE idea was it to MOVE the Florida primary??

All together now: MARCO RUBIO.

He's a Republican if you're not aware.
Just kidding. I know we all know who Marco is.

Anyway, I call BS.

re: Democrats cry reverse racism

voxy — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:07:55 GMT

I might add that as to the census: It's just a way to keep us divided. By the time the data is available the population has shifted.

AND, if that argument about that Iowa, New Hampshire pasty faces is true. (LOL)
then WHY pray tell did Obama WIN New Hampshire and place second only barely after John Edwards in Iowa?? Hmmmmm. Maybe only New Hampshire and Iowa are colorblind and the other 48 states are racists.

If justice is blind (and she's not) than we CAN be colorblind. (MOST ARE) I am. If Tiger Woods' progressive little self would throw his hat in the ring for Pres. I'd vote for him.

Obama?? Not so progressive.

If we're so hung up on 'being fair' LOL than WHY is Obama unwilling to seat the delegates when Florida's huge black population went for the other candidate?

It's an embarrassment that seemingly intelligent people have allowed this race to be framed in BLACK WHITE.

I'm ashamed of anyone who is falling for this.

It's SO NOT TRUE.

If John Edwards were black and still voiced the same ideas we coulda tossed the race card in and I could have MY choice?

As a forgotten woman, I mean?

re: Democrats cry reverse racism

Long-timer — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:09:44 GMT

In the last few months, Mrs. Obama has grudgingly admitted that "for the first time" in her life, she is proud to be an American. If you wondered where her head was at for the previous 20+ years since she graduated from Princeton, consider these warm and fuzzy words. 1.) America was founded on "Crime and Hatred", 2.) Whites in America were "ineradicably racist," These were just some of her thoughts in "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community - her senior thesis written ;under her maiden name of Michelle LaVaugn Robinson in 1985.

She goes on to desribe herself as a "separationist" and goes on to say, "There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost." Is this the fair and balanced philosophy that we are looking for in our First Lady.

The starkest image of her bigotry lies in the fact that regardless of the fact that only the tiniest minority of the black students at Princeton responed to her survey with anything approaching her racist bent, she tossed their views aside in her conclusion - quoted from her thesis, "I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility."

Can we really ignore her thesis and the Pastor at Senator Obama's church as minor 'rough spots' in his philosphy and believs. Is it not more reasonable to think that a lifetime immersed in this separationist church environment and married to a woman who derided the beliefs of her own black classmates because they were not 'black' enough to satisfy her views would have similarly colored Senator Obama?

It's too bad that most of the mainstream media, that is so quick to point out Bill Clintons foibles and miscues has had nothing to say about the bitter and radical views of Michelle Obams. This is a woman who looks into a crowd of supporters and doesn't see Americans. She sees blacks and whites - distinct and, in her mind, forever enemies!